2. In light of the circumstance and method of the instant crime, etc., the crime of this case is not deemed to have poor quality in light of its circumstances and method, and the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties requires strict punishment to establish public authority and legal order, even though not to recognize mental and physical weakness, there is a aspect that it is difficult to evaluate the Defendant’s behavior equally with the general public in light of the motive of the instant crime, attitude at the investigation agency and court of the Defendant, etc. (the Defendant himself has a fact that it is not in the mental health department and hospital of one year).

In full view of various sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be excessively minor, beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, intelligence and environment; (b) the victim’s relationship; and (c) the Defendant’s motive, means and consequence after committing the crime.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.